Legal on the laws, which impose caps or limits on punitive damages for tort recovery in all the states of USA - Research Paper Example

? Margaret Hickey-Marco Jeffrey Bambas April 18, Re: People Against TCA Reform Research Dear Mrs. Marco, As you requested, I have performed research on the laws, which impose caps or limits on punitive damages for tort recovery in all the states of USA. Exemplary damages or punitive damages ( hereinafter will be referred as PD) under tort in United States is the financial compensation granted to an affected party which is essential to pay damages to an individual for the injury or harm suffered and which is aimed to castigate the offender. Insurance companies have made strong lobbying for fixing cap on the award of punitive damages under tort laws. As of 2005, 45 out of 50 states in USA pursued cap on punitive damages or more realistic evidence to prove it. Under Arizona state constitution articles XVIII, § 6 , the privilege to initiate action to recover damages for harm shall never be abolished, and the quantum recovered shall not be subject to legal cap.( Lori Woodward O’Connell, The Case for Continuing to Award Punitive Damages, 36 Tort & Insurance Law Journal , 873 (2001) (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com). Perhaps, the Arizona state is the only state which excludes a cap on awarding the punitive damages under tort. 1 Alabama Alabama Code S. 6-5-410 (a) states that punitive damages can be levied for unfair actions, negligence or omission of any individual or company. Upon proving negligence, the above section allows to claim for punitive damages. S 6-11-20(a) permits for punitive damages in civil cases where it has been demonstrated that “the defendant wantonly or consciously involved in fraud, malice or fraud.” For proving malice and fraud, there should be a presence of an intentional act. Alabama State proscribes the award of punitive damages in litigation against a master when a case is filed under vicarious liability or against state agencies. BAEZ & BEAU III BAEZ, TORT LAW IN THE USA 171 (Kluwer Law International 2010) (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com 2 Alaska Sec.09.17.020 of Alaska statute permits to claim punitive damages.As per this section , the punitive damages for outrageous , reckless acts will be awarded either of the following, and it should not exceed the greater of ; Three times of compensatory damages levied to the claimant. “A sum of $ 500,000.” There are separate limits for employees who have been injured by the action of employers. If a claimant is awarded punitive damages, then the court will insist that half of the punitive damages awarded shall have to be paid into general fund of the state. If the punitive damages is covered by an insurance policy , then the insurer will have to pay the punitive damages to the claimant on behalf of the defendant unless if there is any exclusion clause for the coverage of PD. Christopher T.Stidvent , Tort Reform in Alaska : Much Ado about Nothing? , 16 Alaska L.Rev. 61 (1999) (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com 3 Arizona There is no statute setting cap on punitive damages under tort in Arizona. However , there exists case laws on the subject. In Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v Winston & Strawn , it was held that for recovering punitive damages under Arizona’s law , the claimant has to demonstrate that defendant involved in outrageous and aggravated demeanor with an ‘evil mind’. The same view was held in some Arizona cases like Rawlings v Apodaca, Thompson v Better-Bit Aluminums Prod. Co also. In”Gurule v Illinois Mutual Life & Cas. Co.” , it was held that if a defendant acts with the required evil mind , thereby by defrauding , injuring or intentionally mediating with the privileges of others , by disrespecting the risk of poignant harm to them. Bruce C .King and Carol J.Patterson, Ethics, 25 Construction Lawyer Journal. 5, (2005) (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com 4 Arkansas Under ARK CODE ANN § 16-55-207 as amended in 2010 , a claimant should convince the onus of evidence demanded under § 16-55-206 by obvious and convincing proof so as to recover punitive damages from the defendant. Further , § 16-55-210 authorises review of punitive damages levied by appellate courts. Lisa –Marie France, Recent Developments, 56 Ark.L.Rev.703, (2003) (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com. 5 California Under Civil Code § 3294 of California, punitive damages can be levied for fraud, oppression or malice. The above code also provides that there cannot be recovery of punitive damages without actual damages.In defining the norms for granting punitive damages, more attention should be given to the standards that should be construed around the notion of oppression in an infringement of the condition of fair dealing and good faith cases. KENNETH A.MANASTER ,CALIFORNIA TORTS (Mathew Bender & Co Inc 2012) (March 30, 2012),www.lexis.com 6 Colorado Colorado statutes§ 13-21-102 states that a claimant may apply for recovery of punitive damages if he is able to demonstrate wanton, malice or willful demeanor on the part of the defendant. “Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-21-102.5 “ puts cap on punitive or exemplary damages. 13-21-203 deals with the punitive damages award. There is a cap on non-economic injury or loss. MATHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, (Matthew Bender & Company, Inc 2011) www.lexis.com 7 Connecticut There is no statute setting cap on punitive damages under tort in Connecticut. However , there exists case laws on the subjec. To claim punitive damages, there should be adequate evidence to demonstrate that there has been a deliberate and wanton infringement of other’s rights or reckless unresponsiveness to the privileges of others. In Connecticut, there is a hoary rule capping punitive damages under common law to a claimant’s attorney fees, litigation costs and expenses. Hence, the accountability for punitive damages is considerably restricted in Connecticut. Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110b deals with awarding of punitive damagesunder the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. PART III SPECIAL ISSUES, Chapter 14 "Tort Reform" Legislation *, 2-14 Damages in Tort Actions § 14.02, § 14.02 Major Areas of Tort Reform, Damages in Tort Actions ,Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com 8 Delaware There is no statute setting cap on punitive damages under tort in Delaware. However , there exists case laws on the subject In Delaware, PD is available where it has been demonstrated that the defendant demeanor is contemptible due to reckless indifference or evil motive to the privileges of others. This has been affirmed in Jardel Co., Inc. v. Hughes. Under Del. Code § 4013, there is a cap on damages against the state. LEXISNEXIS, DELAWARE CODE ANNOTATED (Michie 2011) 9 Florida Under Florida’s law, punitive damages is inflicted if there is real malice, fraud, or intentional oppression or violence or demeanor that is grossly negligent or willful as to demonstrate an intentional disrespect for the privileges of others. The Florida. State. Ann. § 768.73 prescribes a cap on PD. Under § 768.73, the award of punitive damages may not surpass the higher of three times the amount of compensatory damages or the maximum of $ 500,000. If the claimant is able to demonstrate that defendant enjoyed irrational monetary gain or if engaged in irrational dangerous character of the demeanor or caused higher injury ,then, the award of punitive damages will be four times of the amount of compensatory damages or not in excess of $ 2 million. “Under Florida. State. Ann. § 768.28 states that no PD can be found against the State. THOMAS J COLLIN , PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND BUSINESS TORTS (American Bar Association ) 80 (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com 10 Georgia Under Georgia law, PD is allowable only if it is proved that there has been intentional fraud, misconduct, fraud, oppression, wantonness or cognizant indifference. “Under Georgia. Code Ann. § 51-12-5, there has been a cap of $250,000 on PD. William L. O’Brien, Trade Secret Reclamation: an Equitable Approach in a Relative World, 21 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 227 (2003) (March 30, 2012), http://www.lexis.com 11 Hawaii PD can be levied if there have been a malicious, intentional, willful act .“Under Hawaii. Rev. Stat. § 662-2, no PD can be imposed on State. Hawaii tort laws can be said to be pro-plaintiff , its punitive damages jurisprudence can be said to be one of the most liberal in USA , courts in Hawaii have widely construed awards by jury employing a relaxed norms of review and Hawaii had not yielded to pressures exerted for putting a cap on punitive damages in the last two decades from various stakeholders and hence Hawaii remains as a jurisdiction of very high award amounts and high rate of punitive damages of all the fifty states of USA. It is to be noted that Hawaii Supreme Court upheld the award of $1.5 million in Parnar case whereas it reversed the largest award of punitive damages of $11.5 million in Masaki case. Denise E. Antolini, Punitive Damages in Rhetoric and Reality, 20, Journals of Law & Politics. 143, (2004), www.lexis.com 12 Idaho PD can be imposed if there have been malicious, intentional, fraudulent, oppressive or outrageous demeanor. Further, Idaho Code § 6-1603 puts cap on non-economic damages. PD is available if it has been demonstrated that there has been an infringement of warranty due to malice, fraud or oppression. As per Idaho Code § 6-1604 , the award of punitive damages cannot surpass $ 250,000 or three times the compensatory damages contained in the award. Robert W. Wagstaff, The Revision of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 35 William & Mary Law Review. 1635,(1994), www.lexis.com 13 Illinois PD may be granted if it is shown that there has been intentional oppression, real malice, intentional violence or fraud by the defendant .As per 745 Ill. Compiled Statue § 10/2-102, no PD can be levied against a local public company. Mike Bersani , Liabilities and Immunities under Tort Immunity Act, 36(9) Illinoise State Bar Association, 247, (2000) 12, www.lexis.com 14 Indiana PD can be imposed if there is an injury to the claimant due to defendant’s wanton or willful misconduct. PD can be imposed if the defendant acted with wanton and willful misdemeanors even in the absence of ill will, malice or aim to injure. Michael Sean Quinn, The Lawyer's Duties and Liabilities to Third Parties, 37 South Texas Law Review. 1203, (1996), www.lexis.com 15 Iowa Sec.658.I of Iowa Statute speak about exemplary PD, which can be awarded if there have been intentional and willful disrespect for the safety or privileges of another. Under Iowa Code § 669.4, 670.4, no PD can be claimed against government. Jason E. McCollough, State Tort Liability for Failure to Protect Against Bioterrorism, 8 Drake Journal of Agricultural Law. 743,(2003), www.lexis.com. 16 Kansas As per Kansas. Statute. Ann. § 60-19a02, there is a cap on PD in personal injury action. Kansas. Statute. Ann. § 75-6105 provides that no accountability for exemplary or punitive damages. David Marck, Necessary Roughness?, 21 Seton Hall J. Sports & Ent. L. 177, (2011), www.lexis.com 17 Kentucky Kentucky State Act. Sec. 411.184 (1) prescribes that PD can be levied if there have been fraud, oppression, gross negligent or malice demeanor. Kentucky Supreme Court observed that the punitive statue was unlawful and hence it is available only for gross negligent demeanor. Kentucky State Act. Sec. 411.186 speaks about award of punitive damages for fraudulent, malevolent, repressive, or grossly negligent conduct by employees. James A. Comodeca and Amanda N. McFarland, Recovery of Non-pecuniary Damages in Mass Tort Actions in Kentucky: A Defense Perspective, 35 Northern Kentucky Law Reviews. 197, (2008) ,www.lexis.com. 18 Louisiana Under Louisiana laws, PD can be awarded only when the same is permitted by a statute. If authorised by a statute, it is available from actual malice to gross negligence. As per” Louisiana. Revised. Statute § 13:5106”, $500,000 has been fixed as a cap in actions against the state. Katharine O'Hara, Case note: Statutory Caps for Wrongful Death Actions Against the State Of Louisiana, 51 Loyola Law Review. 347, (2005), www.lexis.com. 19 Maine There is no statute setting cap on punitive damages under tort in Maine. However , there exists case laws on the subject In Tuttle v. Raymond, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine observed that malice is the main standard for awarding of PD in Maine. Alicia F. Curtis, Punitive Damages in Products Liability Cases, 26 Maine Bar Journal. 194, (2011), www.lexis.com. 20 Maryland PD can be awarded if there have been an intention to injure, evil intention, fraud, ill will or actual malice in Maryland. “As per Maryland. Courts. & Judicial. Procedure. Code Ann. § 11-108”, there has been a cap of $350,000 for recovery of non-economic damages in personal harm. As per “Maryland. Courts. & Judicial. Procedure. Code Ann. § 5-552”, no PD can be levied against government. W. Kennedy Simpson, Recent Developments in Products, General Liability, and Consumer Law, 35 Tort & Insurance Law Journal Winter. 553, (2000), www.lexis.com. 21 Massachusetts Under Massachusetts statute, no PD is permitted except when approved by statute. PD can be awarded for the actions like malice to gross negligence. However, there exists no consistent norm. Joseph R. Nolan, Tort Law, 37 Mass. Prac, Tort Law. § 13.12 (3d Ed.) (2011), (April 1, 2012), http://www.westlaw.com 22 Michigan Generally, Michigan’s statute bars the award of punitive damages, but permits the award of some exemplary damages, which are compensatory in nature. Paul Caritj, Tortuous Interference with the Expectancy of Entitlement Benefits, 45 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 455, (2012), (April 1, 2012), http://www.westlaw.com 23 Minnesota Minnesota Statute Section 549.20 states that PD can be imposed if there is a premeditated disrespect for safety or rights of others. “Minnesota Statute § 466.04 “places a cap on tort liability for municipals and no PD can be imposed against the state. Jeffery .A.Ehrich, Recent Developments in Minnesota Law, 34 William Mitchell Law Review.1249, (2008), http://www.westlaw.com 24 Mississippi “Mississippi code section 11-1-65” provides that PD can be imposed if there have been real malice, total negligence, which corroborates an intentional, wanton, willful or reckless respect for safety of others. As per “Mississippi Code Ann. § 11-46-15”, no PD can be imposed against a government entity. Rex M. Shannon III, Nightmare on Your Street, 77 Mississippi Law Journal. 669, (2007), http://www.westlaw.com 25 Missouri PD can be awarded if there have been an intentional, wanton, willful or malicious act. Statute § 538.210 fixes a cap on non-economic damages. Missouri Revised Statute § 537.675 authorises for the establishment of tort victim compensation fund and state lien on PD. Thomas R. Ireland, Economic Damages Under House Bill 393, 62 Journal of the Missouri Bar.214, (2006), http://www.westlaw.com 26 Montana As per “Montana Code § 27-1-221”, PD can be imposed if there have been actual malevolence or actual fraud. As per “Montana. Code Ann. § 2-9-105”, State or other governmental entity are protected from exemplary and PD. William L. Corbett, Resolving Employee Discharge Disputes Under the Montana, 66 Montana Law Reviews. 279, (2005), http://www.westlaw.com 27 Nebraska There is no statute setting cap on punitive damages under tort in Nebraska. However , there exists case laws on the subject. Under Nebraska statute, no PD is allowed and only compensation for the injury sustained is allowed as held in Miller v Kingsley and Abel v Conover. John M. Gradwohl, Nebraska State Law, 43 Creighton Law Reviews. 97, (2009) , http://www.westlaw.com 28 Nevada Nevada Revenue Statute § 42.005 authorises for the award of PD or exemplary damages, and fixes cap on the same. Nevada Revenue Statute § 41.035 imposes cap on PD against the state. Paola Armeni, Civil Rights in Federal Court, 20-FEB Nevada Lawyer. 46, 2012, http://www.westlaw.com. 29 New Hampshire New Hampshire Revenue Statue § 507:16 prohibits for awarding of PD. As per § 507-B: 4, no PD can be levied against government entity. In “Brannigan v. Usitalo”, a limit of $ 875,000 under § 508:4-d was held illegal. Thomas G. Field, Billy-Bob Teeth Saves Porn Star, 9 New Hampshire Law Review. 409,(2011), http://www.westlaw.com 30 New Jersey New Jersey Statute § 2A:15-5.12 provides that PD can be levied if there have been real malice or willful and intentional disrespect to others. As per § 59:9-2, no PD can be imposed on public entity. O'Shaughnessy, RICO, GTL (General Tort Liability), And Jersey Shore, 22Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law.129, (2012), http://www.westlaw.com 31 New Mexico New Mexico Statute Ann. § 41-4-19 fixes the maximum PD liability against the state. Under New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions—Civil, UJI 13-1011, PD can be imposed if there have been intentional, malevolent, careless, gross negligent, cruel or fraudulent actions to others. M.E. Occhialino, Examining the Spectrum of Noneconomic Harm, 35 New Mexico Law Review. 449, (2005), http://www.westlaw.com 32 New York Under New York statute, PD can be imposed if there is reckless or conscious disrespect to the rights of others. To claim PD, no actual malice is to be demonstrated but gross negligence is needed. Theodore H. Davis, The U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act, 102 The Trademark Reporter. 1, (2012), http://www.westlaw.com 33 North Carolina North Carolina statute needs higher magnitude than of ordinary negligence like willfulness , reckless indifference or wantonness for the claim of PD. Lawrence A. Cunningham, How the Supreme Court Flaunts and Flunks Contracts, 75 Law and Contemporary Problems. 129 , (2012), http://www.westlaw.com 34 North Dakota North Dakota Cent. Code “§ 32-03.2-11” stipulates that a jury or court can award exemplary damages if there have been fraud, oppression or malice. For the award of PD, fraud, oppression or malice is a precondition. Bret L. Bornsen, Constitutional Law--Separation of Powers, 74 North Dakota Law Review. 775 ,(1998), http://www.westlaw.com 35 Ohio As per Ohio Revised Code § 2315.21, PD can be awarded if there have been egregious or provoked fraud or malice. As per” § 2744.05”, no PD can be awarded against a government entity. Philip Broikos, J.D, Punitive Damages, Ohio Jurisprudence. Third Edition ,(2012), http://www.westlaw.com 36 Oklahoma Oklahoma statute § 9.1 authorises award of PD by jury in case if there have been reckless or malice disrespect for the privileges of others. § 154 provide that no PD can be awarded against the state. Vicki Lawrence MacDougall, Oklahoma Product Liability Law, 8 Okla. Prac, Product Liability Law. § 12:17, (2012 ed.), http://www.westlaw.com 37 Oregon Oregon Revised Statute § 31.710 places a cap on non-economic damages. § 18.537 states the necessary standard for an award of PD.As per “§ 30.270”, no PD can be awarded against the state. Helen Hierschbiel, What's in a Fee?, 72-NOV Oregon State Bar Bulletin. 9, (2011), http://www.westlaw.com 38 Pennsylvania PD can be awarded if there have been willful, intentional, malice or careless indifference in Pnnsylvannia. As per 42 Pennsylvania Constitution Statute § 8553, there has been a cap on the award of PD to government units. MaryAnn Fenicato, Doctors Fail to Recognize Allergic Reaction, 2 No. 11 Lawyers Journal. (2000), http://www.westlaw.com 39 Rhode Island Under Rhode Island statute, the claimant should establish strong evidence that defendant acted with recklessness, willfulness or wickedness for the award of PD. DEBORAH E. GREENSPAN, EVOLVING CASE LAW AFFECTING MASS TORT,(West Law 2012). 40 South Carolina South Carolina Code § 15-33-135 provides for the award of PD. § 15-78-120 states that no PD can be awarded against the state. Catherine A. Haselden, Amount Of Punitive Damages, South Carolina Jurisprudence, § 43, (2012), (April 1, 2012), http://www.westlaw.com 41 South Dakota South Dakota statute 21-3-2 states that PD can be awarded in discretion of the jury if there have been fraud, malice or oppression. SOUTH DAKOTA WEST GROUP, SOUTH DAKOTA COMPILED LAW, (Thomson West 2005). 42 Tennessee PD can be levied if there have been fraud, malice or carelessness in Tennessee. “Tennessee Code Ann. § 29-20-311”puts a cap on PD against the state. Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Local Government Liability Issues in Tennessee , ( April 3 ,2012), http://www.tn.gov/tacir/PDF_FILES/Other_Issues/tort.pdf. 43 Texas Texas Civil. Practice. & Rem. Code § 41.003 prescribes the standards for the claim of PD. § 41.008 places a cap on amount of PD. Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 41- Damages, ( April 3 ,2012),http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.41.htm. 44 Utah Utah Code Ann 78-18-1 sets the basis for PD awards. §63-30d-604 places a cap on PD against a governmental entity. A. MICHAEL FERRILL, BUSINESS TORTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION HANDBOOK (American Bar Association 2006). 45 Vermont Under Vermont statute, PD is recoverable if there is actual malice. VERMONT. SUPREME COURT, REPORTS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF VERMONT, (Vermont printing Company 1999). 46 Virginia “Virginia Code Ann. § 8.01-38.1”places a cap on quantum of PD. “Virginia Code § 38.2-227” deals with the public policy regarding PD. Code of Virginia , § 8.01-38.1Limitation on Recovery of Damages, ( April 3 ,2012), http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+8.01-38.1. 47 Washington In Washington state, damages for PD are not normally recoverable . ALAN W.SCHEFLIN, TORTS, AND RESTITUTION, VOLUME 2, (Lerner Law Book Co 1969). 48 West Virginia Under West Virginia law, PD is recoverable if there has been malice, gross fraud, wanton, oppression, reckless or willful demeanor. Under West Virginia Code § 55-7B-8, a cap is placed on economic loss in action against medical care providers. § 29-12A-7 places restriction on PD against a political subdivision. West Virginia Legislature ,West Virginia Code, ( April 3 ,2012), http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/ChapterEntire.cfm?chap=29&art=12A. 49 Wisconsin Wisconsin statute § 895.85 states that PD can be recovered if there have been wanton or malice disrespect. § 655.017 place a cap on non-economic damages recoverable under medical negligence cases. § 893.80 provide that no PD is recoverable from state. BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, CONSTRUCTION LABOR REPORT, (Cornell University2005). 50 Wyoming PD is generally recoverable under Wyoming laws. Wyoming Statute § 1-39-118 provides that no PD is available against the state. MITCHEIE, WYOMING STATUTES ANNOTATED, (Michie, 2007). Recommendation On analysing the above 50 state laws, it is pertinent to note that there are poignant issues with current state legal systems of evaluating punitive damages awards. In these systems, the juries are offered with no guidance in the assessment of liability for PD and their evaluations of a proper award for PD. Insurance companies have made strong lobbying for fixing cap on the award of punitive damages under tort laws. If we are able to mobilize adequate resources, we can very well dismantle the insurance companies’ strategies by lobbying with various state legislators to remove the cap on PD. Further, we have to convince the various state legislators to follow the Alaska style that half of the PD awarded to be deposited with the state general fund which will improve the finances of the particular state. This can be achieved by removing the cap on the awarding of PD so that each state will be benefited out of the half of the PD awarded to be deposited with them. We strongly feel, with adequate resources, we can lobby with various state legislators to remove the cap on PD awarded under a tort claim. We would recommend to all the state legislators while lobbying for the above to follow the principle laid down in “Boeken v. Philip Morris, Inc., 127 Cal. App. 4th 1640”, where the Supreme Court of California has outlined the three-part test to take into account whether a punitive damage award is excessive: the quantum of compensatory damages awarded, the reprehensibility of the actions of the defendant as a whole; the financial background of the defendant. List of Statutes referred in the Essay Alabama Code Section 6-5-410 (a) (1975) Alabama Code Section 6-11-20(a) (1975) Alaska Section 09.17.020 (1996) California civil code § 3294 (1950) Colorado Revised statutes § 13-21-102 (1997) Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-203(1997) California Civil Code § 3294 Delaware Code § 4013 Florida Stat. Ann. 768.73 (1991) Florida Stat. Ann. 768.28 (1991) Georgia Code Ann. § 51-12-5 (1997) Idaho Code § 6-1603 (2000) Idaho Code § 6-1604 Illinois Compiled Statutes §§ 10/2-102 (2003) Indiana. Code Ann § 34-13-3-4 (1998) Iowa Code § 669.4, 670.4 (1998) Kansas Statute Ann. § 60-19a02 (1994) Kentucky State Act Sec 411.184 (1988) Louisiana Revised Statute § 13:5106 (2011) Maryland Courts & Judicial Procedure Code Ann § 11-108 (2008) Maryland Courts & Judicial Procedure Code Ann § 5-552 (2008) Minnesota Statute Ann § 466.04(1999) Minnesota Statute Ann. § 549.20 (1999) Mississippi Code Ann. § 11-46-15 (1972) Mississippi code section 11-1-65 (1972) Missouri Revised Statute § 537.675 (2001) Montana. Code Ann. § 2-9-105 (2005) Montana Code § 27-1-221 (2005) New Hampshire Revenue Statue § 507-B (1994) New Hampshire Revenue Statue § 507:16 (1994) New Jersey Revised Statute § 2A:15-5.12 (2011) New Jersey Statute §59:9-2 (1997) New Mexico Statute Ann. § 41-4-19 (1996) North Dakota Century Code § 32-03.2-11 (1999) Ohio Revised Code § 2315.21(2005) Ohio Revised Code § 2744.05 (2005) Oklahoma Statute § 9.1 (Supp. 2003) Oklahoma Statute § 154 (Supp. 2003) Oregon Revised Statute § 30.270 (Supp. 2011) Oregon Revised Statute § 31.710(Supp. 2011) Pennsylvania Constitution Statute § 8553 (1979) South Carolina Code § 15-33-135(Supp. 2003) South Dakota Revised Code 21-3-2 (1991) Tennessee Code Ann. § 29-20-311 (1980) Texas Civil Practice & Rem. Code § 41.003 (1995) Utah Code Ann 78-18-1 (1991) Virginia Code Ann. § 8.01-38.1 (1988) Virginia Code § 38.2-227(1988) West Virginia Code § 29-12A-7 (1999) West Virginia Code § 55-7B-8 (2003) Wisconsin statute § 895.85 (2001-2002) Wyoming Statute § 1-39-118 (1997) Read More